torque effect?
go for a fang in an old swing axle vw beetle/baja/buggy/country buggy that has the conventional setup and then go for a fang in one that has reduction hubs fitted such that the transaxle spins in "reverse".

under throttle the conventional one squats while the one with the reduction hubs stands up.... to its stops.

Yeah... you are correct swampy and the phenomenon you describe is a trait of the older CV/swing axle design of rear engined VW buggies/baja's, as opposed to the CV's/reduction hubs in the modern rear engine/mid engine/rear transmission class 1/open buggies... which also afford masses of travel...!

dont know what this proves but it did remind me of many happy times fanging the old volksies.me either, thoughIt also goes a way's to explaining why the different torque/handling characteristics of a front engined/banjo rear end with live axle (Trophy Truck) compared to the various mid/rear engined independent/CV drivetrain configurations used in Class 1/open desert buggies......but the question here is a motorcycle that has a conventional chain/sprocket drivetrain* and swingarm configuration/ as opposed to the BMW centered countershaft design; where the "torque" involved exhibits itself though a varied set of mechanical circumstance and manifests itself on the rear wheel/suspension characteristics in a different manner...

RE the bmw/husky, i thought having the pivot and the cs at the same point just minimised the torque effect (squatting under accell). no idea really.That was my basic understanding of the BMW countershaft design also...

*An iInteresting footnote; that I have read - both shaft drive, and even PDS or linkage suspension system (as opposed to conventional twin shock principle) have a significant effect on the way that torque/squat alters the rear suspension under acceleration and braking.

I'm sure that regardles of all the physics and tekniks surrounding this science, that whacking 26 liters of fuel above the rear subframe, does a lot to make these calculations a hell of a lot more complicated/critical!

What 690RR is talking about (I think) is the effect of the crank inertia as the revs increase. Accelerating a forward spinning crank will necessarily try and rotate the rest of the bike backwards around the crank. Accelerating a reverse spinning crank will try and rotate the bike forwards around the crank axis.

If you were floating in space on your Husky, fired up the engine and opened the throttle in neutral, you would start spinning forwards.

Whether this actually makes a difference on planet earth I don't know, because there's a hell of a lot of other stuff going on - the rear wheel is also accelerating (with it's own inertia), in the conventional direction, the chain pull is compressing the rear suspension, the bike is trying to accelerate out from under the rider holding the bars, which will result in their weight being transferred rearwards.

It might be fair to say that if you had two identical bikes, apart from the direction of crank rotation, and opened the throttle on both, the conventional crank would have slightly more weight transfer to the rear. That might be a good thing (more grip) or might not (lifts the front wheel and forces you to close the throttle to avoid looping).

What 690RR is talking about (I think) is the effect of the crank inertia as the revs increase. Accelerating a forward spinning crank will necessarily try and rotate the rest of the bike backwards around the crank. Accelerating a reverse spinning crank will try and rotate the bike forwards around the crank axis.

If you were floating in space on your Husky, fired up the engine and opened the throttle in neutral, you would start spinning forwards.

Whether this actually makes a difference on planet earth I don't know, because there's a hell of a lot of other stuff going on - the rear wheel is also accelerating (with it's own inertia), in the conventional direction, the chain pull is compressing the rear suspension, the bike is trying to accelerate out from under the rider holding the bars, which will result in their weight being transferred rearwards.

It might be fair to say that if you had two identical bikes, apart from the direction of crank rotation, and opened the throttle on both, the conventional crank would have slightly more weight transfer to the rear. That might be a good thing (more grip) or might not (lifts the front wheel and forces you to close the throttle to avoid looping).

Excellent explanation 'Uberthumper'!
So what you are saying is the Husky would be the bike of choice for 'Travis Pastrana' to do a 'forward flip'!

__________________

"What could possibly go wrong"

CBVRacing. "The race (Dakar) is what it is, it is being offered to racers, if they chose to sign up they should know that there are only 5 outcomes at the end of the two weeks: Finish, Mechanical, Abandon, Injuries, Death."

There are lots of ways rotating mass and torque transfer can impact weighting of the rear wheel and suspension loading but I propose the overall effect to be minimal compared to shifting the rider weight or big rear fuel tanks.

Anyone who has spent time on a pre-Paralever BMW or Moto Guzzi has experienced these effects. Sit at a stop and blip the throttle and the bike tries to roll sideways from the change in rotational inertia of the engine and flywheel. Accelerate and the whole bike raises or close the throttle and the bike lowers (not a good idea mid turn). This effect is due to torque transfer through the gears in the final drive.